On the Question of a Nation-Wide Revolution

Published:Proletary, No. 16, May 2, 1907.

      Published according to theProletarytext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Foreign Languages Publishing House,1962,

      Moscow,Volume 12,

      pages404-408.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Ina certain sense 6f the word, it is only a nation-wide revolution that can be
victorious. This is true in the sense that the unity of the overwhelming
majority of the population in the struggle for the demands of that revolution
is essential for victory to be won. This overwhelming majority must consist
either entirely of one class, or of different classes that have certain aims in
common. It is also true, of course, that the present Russian revolution can be
victorious only if it is nation-widein that specific senseof the
word that the conscious participation of the overwhelming majority of the
population in the struggle is essential for victory to be won.

That,however, is the limit of the conventional truthfulness of the catchword
of a “nation-wide” revolution. No further conclusions can be drawn
from this concept, which is nothing but a truism (only an overwhelming majority
can be victorious over an organised and dominant minority). For this reason it
is fundamentally incorrect and profoundly un-Marxist to apply it as a general
formula, as a model, a criterion of tactics. The concept of a “nation-wide
revolution” should tell the Marxist of the need for a precise analysis of
those varied interests ofdifferentclasses that coincide in certain
definite, limited common aims. Under no circumstances must this concept serveto concealor overshadow the study of the class struggle in the course
of any revolution. Such use of the concept of “nation-wide
revolution” amounts to a complete rejection of Marxism and a return to the
vulgar phraseology of the petty-bourgeois democrats or petty bourgeois
socialists.

Thistruth is frequently forgotten by our Social-Democratic Right wing. Still
more frequently do they forget thatclass relations in a revolution change
with the progress of that revolution. All real revolutionary progress means
drawing broader masses into the movement; consequently—a greater
consciousness of class interests; consequently—more clearly-defined
political, party groupings and more precise outlines of the class physiognomy of
the various parties; consequently—greater replacement of general,
abstract, unclear political and economic demands that are vague in their
abstractness, by thevaryingconcrete, clearly-defined demands of the
different classes.

Forinstance, the Russian bourgeois revolution, like any other bourgeois
revolution, inevitably begins under the common slogans of “political
liberty” and “popular interests”; only in the course of the
struggle, the concrete meaning of those slogans becomes clear to the masses and
to the different classes, only to the extent that a practical attempt is made
to implement that “liberty”, to give adefinitecontent
even to such a hollow-sounding word as “democracy”. Prior to the
bourgeois revolution, and at its onset, all speak in the name of
democracy—the proletariat and the peasantry together with urban
petty-bourgeois elements, and the liberal bourgeoisie together with the liberal
landlords. It is only in the course of the class struggle, only in the course of
a more or less lengthy historical development of the revolution, that the
different understanding of this “democracy” by the different
classes is revealed. And what is more, the deep gulf between the interests of
the different classes is revealed in their demands fordifferenteconomic and political measures, in the name of one and the same
“democracy”.

Onlyin the course of the struggle, only as the revolution develops, is it
revealed that one “democratic” class or stratum does not want to
go, or cannot go, as far as another, that while “common” (allegedly
common) objectives are being achieved, fierce skirmishes develop around themethodby which they are to be achieved, for example, on the degree,
extent or consistency of freedom and power of the people, or the manner in which
land is to be transferred to the peasantry, etc.

Wehave had to recall all these forgotten truths so as to enable the reader to
    understand the dispute that recently took place between two
    newspapers. This is what one of them,Narodnaya Gazeta, wrote
    against the other,Nashe Ekho.

“’Thegrouping of the population by party,’ wroteNashe Ekho,
   ’that important political lesson and the revolution’s most important
   political acquisition at the time of the elections to the Second Duma, showed
   clearly by nation-wide facts that broad strata of the landlords and
   bourgeoisie are swinging to the Right.’ Quite true. But the mood and the
   mandates which the ’Left’ deputies—Socialist Revolutionaries,
   Trudoviks, and Popular Socialists—have brought with them from their
   localities also ’showed clearly’ on a nationwide scale that the ’people’ are
   at present steeped in Cadet ’constitutional illusions’ to a considerable
   degree, that the ’people’ place excessive hopes on the independent activities
   of the Duma, that they are excessively concerned with ’saving’ the Duma. That
   is the obvious fact that theNashe Ekhowriters failed to
   notice. They did noticewhomthe people sent to the Duma, but notwhatthey were sent therefor. But in that case, willNashe Ekhonot agree that, in proposing that the proletariat ignore
   ’nation-wide’ tasks, it is proposing that it isolate itself, not only from
   bourgeois ’society’, but also from the petty-bourgeois ’people’?"

“’Thegrouping of the population by party,’ wroteNashe Ekho,
   ’that important political lesson and the revolution’s most important
   political acquisition at the time of the elections to the Second Duma, showed
   clearly by nation-wide facts that broad strata of the landlords and
   bourgeoisie are swinging to the Right.’ Quite true. But the mood and the
   mandates which the ’Left’ deputies—Socialist Revolutionaries,
   Trudoviks, and Popular Socialists—have brought with them from their
   localities also ’showed clearly’ on a nationwide scale that the ’people’ are
   at present steeped in Cadet ’constitutional illusions’ to a considerable
   degree, that the ’people’ place excessive hopes on the independent activities
   of the Duma, that they are excessively concerned with ’saving’ the Duma. That
   is the obvious fact that theNashe Ekhowriters failed to
   notice. They did noticewhomthe people sent to the Duma, but notwhatthey were sent therefor. But in that case, willNashe Ekhonot agree that, in proposing that the proletariat ignore
   ’nation-wide’ tasks, it is proposing that it isolate itself, not only from
   bourgeois ’society’, but also from the petty-bourgeois ’people’?"

Thisis an extremely instructive and noteworthy tirade, which conceals three
major opportunist errors; first, the results of the elections are contrasted
with the mood of the deputies, which is substituting the deputies’ mood for that
of the people, and reverting from the more profound, exten sive and basic to the
shallower, narrower and

			     derivative.[1]Secondly, the question of a firm and sustained political line pnd tactics for
the proletariat is replaced by the question of an assessment of some
“mood” or another. Thirdly—andthis is most
important—for the sake of the vulgarly democratic fetish of a
“nation-wide revolution”, the proletariat is scared with the bogey
of“isolation”from the “petty bourgeois
people”.

Weshall deal with the first two errors as briefly as possible. The elections
affected the masses, and showed, not only their fleeting mood but theirprofound interests. It is altogetherunworthy of Marxists to revert from class interests (expressed by the
party grouping at the elections) to a fleeting mood. The mood of the deputies
may be one of gloom, while the economic interests of the masses may call forth a
mass struggle. An assessment of “mood”, therefore, may be necessary
to determinethe momentfor some action, step, appeal, etc., but
certainly not to determine proletariantactics. To argue differently
would mean replacing sustained proletarian tactics by unprincipled dependence
on “mood”. And all the time, the point at issue was that of alineand had nothing to do with a “moment”. Whether or not
the proletariat has at present recovered (andNarodnaya Gazetadoes not
think so) is of importance in decidingthe “moment” for
action, but not in determining the tacticalline of actionof the
working class.

Thethird error is the most profound and the most important—the fear of
“isolating” the Social-Democrats or the proletariat (which is the
same thing) from the petty-bourgeois people. That is really a most improper
fear.

Social-Democracymustisolate itself from the petty-bourgeois people
inasmuch as the Socialist-Revolution aries, Trudoviks and Popular Socialists are
really trailing along in the wake of the Constitutional-Democrats—and that
is happening — and indeed has happened very frequently beginning with the
voting for Golovin, and continuing with the famous tactics of sepulchral
silence, etc. For there must be one of two things; either the vacillation of the
petty bourgeoisie is, in general, an indication of the shaky nature of the petty
bourgeois, and the difficult and arduous development of the revolution, but
does not signify that it has ended or that its forces are exhausted (which is
our opinion). Then, by isolating itself from all and every vacillation and
wavering in petty-bourgeois people, the Social-Democratic proletariateducatesthem for the struggle, trains them in preparation for the
struggle and develops their political consciousness, determination, firmness,
etc. Or else, the wavering of the petty-bourgeois people means the finale of the
present bourgeois revolution (we believe such a view to bewrong, and
none of the Social-Democrats have directly and openly defended it, although
extreme Right-wing Sociel-Democrats are undoubtedly inclined to do so). Then,again, the Social-Democratic proletariatmust alsoisolate itself from
    the wavering (or treachery) of the petty bourgeoisie, in order to educate
    the working-class masses in class-consciousness, and prepare them for a
    more planned, firm and decisive participation in the next revolution.

Inboth cases and in all cases, the Social-Democratic proletariat must isolate
itself from the petty-bourgeois people,which is steeped in Cadet
illusions, and do so unconditionally. The proletariat must in all cases
pursue the firm, sustained policy of a truly revolutionary class, with out
allowing itself to be flustered by any reactionary or philistine cock-and-bull
stories, whether these are about nationwide tasks in general, or about a
nation-wide revolution.

Itis possible that, given a certain combination of forces or a concurrence of
unfavourable conditions, the overwhelming part of the bourgeois and
petty-bourgeois strata may be infected, for the time being, with servility,
slavishness or cowardice. That would be “nation-wide” cowardice, and
the Social-Democratic proletariatisolatesitself from it in the
interests of the working-class movement as a whole.

[1]As far as “mandates” are concerned we reject that argument
completely. Who makes a count of revolutionary and opportunist instructions
and mandates? Who does not know how many newspa pers have been suppressed
for publishing revolutionary instructions?—Lenin